> Sorry, I thought you were aiming toward the age old "this > working group has existed too long" debate. On the > usefulness question, I actually think an experienced AD is > going to know what works and what doesn't, more so than an > inexperienced one. But the AD doesn't invent the ideas. So... It is possible to be too experienced - as was demonstrated during certain very extended incumbencies. The particular behavior I was refering to was 'gilding the turd'. Five or six years ago there was rather a lot of effort going into activities that made minor improvements to specs that were completely undeployable. > > The Internet faces two rather serious problems. The Internet is not > > secure and we are running out of address space faster than IPv6 > > deployment is proceeding. > > "Imminent Death of the Net Predicted"(r) > > Wake me when it happens. Economics will have its say here, IMHO. Currently Internet crime is costing around a billion to ten billion dollars a year. At what point do you feel that there is a crisis worthy of your attention? > > We really could use a version of DNSSEC that can be deployed. > > Ummm... Physician, Heal Thyself? If the WG had accepted my proposal the spec would have been deployed three years ago. At this point we are still waiting for Moore's law to make RAM cheaper. Most new ADs tell a number of groups that they are on notice and must complete or be shut down, these threats are followed through rather less often. There is a particular type of deadlock that arises where a group has not got a workable spec, refuses to consider the type of changes necessary to make it workable and refuses to allow any other group to consider the issue. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf